What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
105 Comments
- Araxen, on 04/15/2008, -6/+161***** THE RIAA!!!
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -2/+86two words "counter sue"
- theaceoffire, on 04/15/2008, -3/+53No, they are NOT within their rights to use fear to force poor people to pay fees to stay out of court.
They are NOT within their rights to sue random people and then try to find out why.
They should be dismantled, and the companies sponsoring this should be fined. - mwrl, on 04/15/2008, -3/+47How have RIAA members not been gunned down by now? I mean really, they are really the scum of the earth. I doubt the police would even investigate. Every member in the US would be a suspect!
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -8/+48If I sue you and you are forced to get an attorney and then I LOSE I have to pay your attorney. That's how it works folks. How come the RIAA is getting away with this?
I believe this judge should be brought up in ethical trial! - Sep11insidejob, on 04/15/2008, -0/+30Canada pwns. If you sue someone and lose, you pay for their lawyers. So simple!
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+28They usually sue people who can't afford good lawyers etc... Never heard of a lawsuit against china or the rest of the world where you walk around and buy anything for less than a dollar .... Software, CD's , Kidneys etc....
I mean that single mom who recorded the spice girls CD is definitely robbing us of millions and millions of dollars!!!!!! - SilverBlade2k, on 04/15/2008, -1/+24quite ***** disgusting.
I hope the guy counter-sues. - talonstriker, on 04/15/2008, -2/+21By the way if anyone here works for the RIAA... kill yourself.
No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself.
Seriously though, if you are, do. - Risingashes, on 04/15/2008, -1/+19That judge should be ashamed.
Basically giving the RIAA free reign to sue whoever they want without consequence. - MrTito, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19*****. If they take someone to court with flawed evidence, a flawed case, and essentially no grounds to actually bring the case to court then the RIAA needs to pony up for their mistake. If people being sued can't use ignorance as a defense, than the RIAA shouldn't be forgiven for their god damned ignorance either.
***** the RIAA! - djbon2112, on 04/15/2008, -2/+18Before proceeding to trial, yes, they should have. The police don't say "the evidence points to someone in this house murdering someone. Let's arrest the owner and go to trial". The RIAA shouldn't be able to either.
- Olfster, on 04/15/2008, -2/+16As much as we do not like what they are doing, it is our system that allows this to happen. Remember the US has the greatest legal system in the world? Any one willing to defend that now? Well it has faults and the way patent trolls, the RIAA and all large corporations take advantage of it is with their ability to fund lawsuits against smaller companies and individuals that are decimated by such lawsuits. Great system. Just wait until the middle class of America is completely gutted. Hunger is the new bond of slavery, needs and wants are the new bonds of slavery, the haves are few, the have-nots are many, welcome the the new era of slavery.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -1/+14We should have the concept of "loser pays" in the U.S.
- thinman1189, on 04/15/2008, -0/+12Disgraceful. This is nothing but a witch hunt.
- willfe, on 04/15/2008, -0/+11"If I sue you and you are forced to get an attorney and then I LOSE I have to pay your attorney."
Nope. Not at all. In a criminal case, the government has to pay for an attorney for the accused if s/he can't afford one on their own. In a civil matter, the court will yawn a big fat bored yawn if you can't afford a lawyer to defend yourself. Even if you hire one and successfully defend, it's *your* turn to file suit for costs and damages in most cases, unless there's some very obvious abuses of the process going on.
"That's how it works folks."
No, that's *not* always how it works. I was sued in small claims court last year, for example, and I won (the suit had no merit). Despite the lack of evidence and a clear indication that the suit was filed mostly to harass and annoy, I wasn't awarded any damages or costs of any sort. My costs were minimal, since really all I had to do was send a few certified letters and pay for some digital photo prints (no more than about $50 all told) and it was an absolute *joy* to trounce the Plaintiff in the courtroom. Even so, you'd have thought that because the woman who sued me lost, still costing me time, energy, and financial resources to defend the suit, the court might have ordered her to pay me for my costs.
Nope.
"How come the RIAA is getting away with this?"
The RIAA is "getting away with this" because we're not done punching the bullies in the nose for this stunt. They've gotten as far as they have because it actually *is* a copyright violation (a civil tort) and a DMCA violation (a civil tort and a criminal act) to download music you haven't paid for -- they're losing the cases they're fighting because they're *absolutely stupid* in how they're going about it, not crossing every T and dotting every I. They're losing on technicalities because they're arrogant and convinced of their righteousness.
The RIAA *did* actually pay a penalty already for filing this lawsuit against the wrong person: it's not free to file a lawsuit, nor to hire lawyers to do it. It may be a drop in the bucket to them, but they did pay to play here. Should they have to pay the attorneys of the party they failed to successfully sue? *Maybe* -- can it be *proven* (to the civil standard, which is less strenuous than the criminal one) they intentionally filed suit against the wrong person, knowing they had the wrong person?
If it's later proven (in a legal way) that the RIAA is on a broad, sweeping witchhunt, then all of its victims (including those who actually lose in court) can countersue to collect damages and costs. Until then, nope, try again. The winner in a suit collects from a loser, if they're the Plaintiff. The defense typically has less expectation of compensation if it "wins." - davidrools, on 04/15/2008, -0/+10SUPPORT THE EFF!
- lucidguru, on 04/15/2008, -1/+11... no justice.
- Skod, on 04/15/2008, -1/+9I said what what...
- Zarokima, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8Bill Hicks' bit on people in marketing.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8The RIAA suck giant harry monkey balls.
- Subriot, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8Futuristic Sex Robots *IS* an awesome band.
- greeniemeani, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9Each time, it gets closer to the top...
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -9/+16Except it DOESN'T work that way. Where the ***** do you THINK you are getting your information from. You do NOT have to pay the defendant's attorney fees if you sue and lose unless it is ruled that you sued maliciously. And in this case, it was reasonable for the RIAA to assume that they ere suing the right person.
Just a tip...You are not more learned in the law than this judge.
And hte fact that this obviously INCORRACT statement is stitting at +11 speaks VOLUMEs for the intelligence of the average Digger. And nothing it is saying is good news for the owners of this site. - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+7it should go to the supreme court
- snakeeyes27, on 04/15/2008, -4/+10in the butt.
- MtheoryX, on 04/15/2008, -0/+6They're not even a real country, anywaaaayyyyy!!
- hexydes, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5Sorry, but most of us aren't complaining about how the law works; we're complaining about how it SHOULD work.
I'm sorry, but corporate America has broken our legal system. - SaltilloPunk, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5The most tangible proof that it is nothing but a money grab for the RIAA, is their lack of action on Mexico, China and other countries where pirate copies of discs can be found in any flea market. If it's about copyrights, then why not push the the WTO or other similar organization to impose sanctions or take other actions? Because there is no money in it. Good luck to the guy in getting restitution for the BS suit they filed against him.
- grumpyrain, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5You do realise that countries that do implement a 'loser pays' rule also usually have 'reasonable costs' concepts. You can not just accumulate unwarranted legal costs and expect to be reimbursed in its entirety. If the plaintiff withdraws their case, the defendant can apply for reasonable costs, and the court can decide how much of that request is reasonable.
Unfortunately, the lack of 'loser pays' concept *causes* frivolous litigation. A plaintiff with no good case or an axe to grind can cause real fiscal damage to a corporation or another individual. This very article demonstrates this. The RIAA can create itself a good income stream by simply threatening to sue if they won't settle. Most people can squeeze to afford a couple of hundred dollars, but can't afford 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars, so they just settle. - SpookyApplePie, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7***** THE RIAA!!!
- Fishnchipsman, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7exactly my thoughts
- djbon2112, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5***** the MPAA. ***** the RIAA. ***** the suits in the BSA. ***** em all for the DMCA.
- Suspension, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4All I heard was "I like it very much".
- ha1f, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6***** the RIAA? ***** this judge. What a ***** douchebag.
- MrWhite7, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6Which would chill a large amount of legitimate litigation. Brilliant.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Normally when an organization or government punishes or criminalizes a society in this sort of way, society ends up revolting and killing everyone in that organization or government. I believe we'll be approaching step 2 of this process very soon.
- Olfster, on 04/15/2008, -3/+6I work in the court system every day. How about you? It is my job to peruse through court cases and watch lawyers do their job. How about you? It is my job to review cases and report the contents of those cases how about you? Single case I think not. Wake up slave.
- kymike, on 04/15/2008, -2/+5I think YOU are the one who doesn't understand: The RIAA _DOES_ sue people maliciously - they have only an IP address to go on in most of these cases. If the RIAA is willing to TAKE THE RISK of suing someone with only an IP address as evidence, then that is their choice. But they damn well ought to pay attorney fees if they lose.
And, by the way, if you are going to insult the Digger community, at least try to spell "CORRACTLY". - locojones, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2What flawed evidence is there? The sued the owner of the IP address that was logged distributing copyrighted works without a license.
What flawed case? Distributing copyrighted files without a license violates the copyright held by the RIAA which entitles them to bring an infringement suit.
Turn off your video games and go to law school before you start talking about stuff you don't understand. - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4Andthen large corporations would NEVER get sued by individuals, no matter how wronged the indiviudla would be. Because no individual will ever take the chance of losing and bankrupting himself.
Or...are you suggesting that that law only apply when the large corporations are doing the suing? - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4And how many large corporations get away with screwing over the little guy because the little guy is afraid to sue and lose?
- cast55, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2That's the point - the little guy in your example, just as the largest corporation, needs to have a compelling case to go to court. Big corporations cease to be targets solely for the reason that they have deep pockets.
- frsrblch, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Not to mention we don't have any of this RIAA *****. No students being sued out of a future here!
- bdbr, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2The last A in RIAA is "America". Disputes between countries falls under the IFPI. They may be *****, but they're OUR *****.
- TheThirdLevel, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4Well put, sir.
- inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2It is not a matter of a compellingcase. "the little guy" would NEVER take that chance unless he literally had the owner of the big company admitting to wrongdoing if he had to risk paying the attorney fees.
You know how many "little guys" lose lawsuits in which they are definitely in the right because the large company has a better team of lawyers? - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2and i can't ***** wait. No, Mr. Douchebag FBI Man, I have no intention of lifting an illegal finger, but when the first RIAA lawyer gets his skull busted open terminally wide, i will cheer, with great gusto. Same for the second, third, whichever. When the price of violence does not return a profit, then the thugs will withdraw, not until.
- jmeskimen, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3That is how our whole legal system works in the US. Seriously, you need to wake up if you've just now figured this out.
No company will manufacture a flu-shot in the US because if people got sick from it, they could sue the company for making them sick. That's why we have a shortage of flu-shots in the US every so often.
Basically, our legal system is a joke but still much better than the majority of other countries'. - inactive, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2oh yeah, they're such a ***** towering paragon of impartiality and reason. that's just asking for even ***** things to happen. yeccch.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is